September 15, 2009

... who I assume was pro-Obama and writing under a pseudonym here with the object of making this blog — and more generally, criticism of Obama — look racist. This coward put up his comment on my 9:50 p.m. post — "Should the President be insulting pop stars?" — at 11:52, presumably to maximize the time that it would be up on the blog and that it would sit here as long as possible before I would take it down, which I did as soon as I got on the blog this morning at around 9 (Central Time).

The commenter, Metlife, had never posted here before and had a profile showing that he'd joined Blogger just this month. He wrote — and the asterisks are mine: "can someone murder that f***ing n***** fast? It will be a good day when Hussein is murdered by one of our southern patriots."

The pushback was immediate. Joe wrote at 11:59: "Could the previous comment be stricken and the poster banned?" Just Lurking said: "Is that you moby?" (suggesting, as I am doing now, that Metlife was against not Obama but this blog community). John Stodder said: "Althouse is probably asleep, but if you have her phone number, wake her up and tell her to delete it." (No one did that.)

Seven Machos said: "Okay, first, get Metlife out of here. At least Cedarford is subtle and occasionally witty.... All racist ass clowns and pretend-racist-agent-provocateur ass clowns should take note of Cedarford's work. This is how it's done." (Cedarford is a longtime commenter who writes well but often expresses extreme ideas of the sort that I do not censor).

Peter Hoh said:

I'm guessing that nolife is a plant. A true Southerner always capitalizes the S.

And wouldn't a full-blown racist southerner consider that "southern" is an unnecessary modifier for "patriot"?

Plus he knew how to spell "Hussein."

Good ole boys spell it "Hoo-sane."

Former law student said...

Speak of laying a turd and someone does. Probably an agent provocateur, because he created a fresh identity for the occasion.

An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

The term is derived from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge: “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?’”

The strategy has been frequently attempted on conservative blogs, but has not been nearly as effective as Moby envisioned, since false rumors are easily debunked by fact-checking minions, and cartoonishly extreme commenters often get immediately identified as mobys and banned.

Lucid said:

Actually, Metlife, with his registration [email] and ip address, should be reported to the secret service. Threatening the president is a serious crime, as it should be.

I also wonder if Metlife is actually a lefty troll pulling an Alinsky.

God, what a festering stinkhole of a web site this is. I don't know how you wingnut loons can stand stewing in your own shit like this, presided over by the shit mistress, Ann Althouse.

Of course she's too dishonest to tell you dumb motherfuckers that Obama's remark was made off the record, thus rendering her posed questions ("should the president be insulting pop stars?" and "what business is it of the presidents?") inoperative. And of course you stupid shit-for-brains don't follow the link to find out for yourselves. Maybe the ever-dull Althouse didn't bother reading enough of the story to find out that the comment was off the record, or maybe she's just dishonest.

You're stewing in a cesspool. And you like it!

And that's an example of the sort of comment I don't delete. I'm that into free speech. But Metlife deserves deletion and, as Lucid said, investigation by the Secret Service. I like to think the Secret Service is good enough that they are already on it.

211 comments:

You'd think the President would have learned by now that he's NEVER really "off the record." Lord knows, plenty of previous Presidents have learned that lesson the hard way ("is this microphone on?").

He does seem to have, like many of us, a psychological need to have an opinion on every single issue (except maybe for those above his pay grade). The rest of us have the luxury, mostly, of being able to express those random opinions. He doesn't, because he's well, you know, the PRESIDENT. The power and the aides and the fancy house and the personal fleet of 747s come with a significant price tag on the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and part of the price is not opening your mouth about every single issue of the day.

There are a lot of lefty trolls trying to peddle the BS that all the opposition about Obama is racially based. It is not. Of course there are fringe racists (on the left and the right) but the vast majority of people, in fact the overwelming majority, reject it out of hand.

And I do not want any physical harm to come to President Obama (and not because that would make Joe Biden President). And I assume 99.9% of the people in this country agree with that.

Woke up to read comments and was again encouraged by the quality of, most, of the people who post here.

WV: proms. Well, that's an interesting idea. An Althouse Comment Community prom? I suspect there'd be a lot of men couples attending. And it's not like the queen and king would be any surprise. 'Ever vigilant' could be the theme.

Thanks to all my readers who gave immediate and overnight pushback to a vile new commenter...

... who I assume was pro-Obama and writing under a pseudonym here with the object of making this blog — and more generally, criticism of Obama — look racist.

First, I'm glad that you don't aceept this type of vile language. Despite the fact that quite a few of your favorites seem to tow the line, this is on another level.

Secondly, why do you assume that he's a sock-puppet. We just watched a day of right-wingers comparing Obama to Hiltler, flying Confederate flags and making racists signs and statements. I know that your benefit of doubt only applies to the right, but just painting this nutjob as lefty is a serious leap.

Threats Against the PresidentYou know, I'm probably wrong since everybody else saw it differently, but I initially read that as a threat against Kayne, not Obama. I mean, commenter was still an ass, but you know.

DBQ, I don’t think I saw that quote from Moby before today either. Or I’ve forgotten it, at any rate.

I would believe that comment was left by a ao-called moby and its great that other commenters rejected it right away. But I wouldn't assume that its not some right-wing nutjob either. There are plenty of manipulative liberals and hateful conservatives and hateful liberals and manipulative conservatives out there. I'm not sure why but in ambiguous circumstances Althouse seems too often to assume facts sympathetic to conservatives, sometimes absurdly so (e.g., citing a figure 30 times larger than the actual crowd at last weekend's protest and posting photos of crowds without noting they include other events unrelated to the protests).

I've wanted to mention this for a while (maybe people already know this) but since Althouse mentioned Alinsky, I thought people would be interested that FreedomWorks (organizer of tea parties, town hall hecklers, etc.) specifically cites Alinksy as inspiration for its tactics. Conservatives label Alinsky a radical ideologue but really he was a tactician for mobilizing public opposition whose ideas apply just as well to conservative goals.

It is usually easy to pick out a Moby commenter. They have built straw men in their minds about who and what conservatives are. They comment like the image in their head rather than like the real thing. The straw men have no basis in reality.

The fact that the comment was made "off the record" really means nothing except the the speaker and the reporter involved. Sure, others in journalism might respect it, but to my knowledge, agreeing that something is "off the record" only protects that journalist's access to that speaker in the future if the comment doesn't get out.

None of that has anything to do with the truth of what really happens or what was really said.

I could care less what Obama thinks about West. Two things come to mind, though. First, if it DOES turn out that it was a staged event a la Eminem, Obama looks like an idiot. Second, the President obviously didn't learn anything from the Cambridge affair about getting directly involved in news stories...and again he looks like an idiot.

I know the man is not an idiot. Radical, leftist, socialist, statist, definitely, but not an idiot. He just LOOKS like an idiot.

I agree that the comment in question was obnoxious, but it didn't seem to me so much a threat as a wish. “Metlife” is not King Henry II, so the comment did not even amount to so much as a unilateral offer and that means it was much less than an implicit order. Surely the comment in question contained no representation of present intent.

Does the Secret Service really investigate everyone who wishes out loud that someone else would assassinate or do harm to a protected person? Does the "permanent record" of the internet make all the difference?

Nothing I’ve said above has anything to do with how fellow Althousians (including Althouse, herself) reacted to “Metlife."

I just think it might prove fruitful to ponder why “Metlife” was/is perceived as such a . . . threat.

I commend you for deleting the comment but I am not so sure you should immediately believe the commenter is a 'moby'. I mean you don't have to look that far on the internet to find racist corners on right wing blogs. Look at some of the signs people carried at the tea bag protests.here or here

So, look, some racists exist in the Republican ranks.But they all love Glenn Beck too - so you know they are crazy.

Because, too an extent, it's the most charitable opinion to have? If Metlife is a moby, that means he or she is not a very nice person, and is smearing his or her fellow Americans, but isn't actually engaging in Criminal behavior. In other words, he or she is a garden variety oaf that needs to learn her manners (tired of writing "his or her").

If, Metlife was serious, than a) she's not much of a Conservative, she's a nut and b) she's quite a bit more disgusting and dangerous.

I'll suggest why, Saul; because Ann knows the post has already most likely been copy/pasted/filed for future use to attack this site as an example of right-wing extremism. As has already occurred -- pulling extreme comments and displaying as representative. She's cutting the criticism off at the pass, as it were. Demonstrating she's onto the tricks of the trade.

The comment doesn't sound genuine to me. The "southern patriot" thing, especially, strikes me as the kind of phrase that might work very well as a derisive comment in a far lefty's everyday speech, and then the kind of thing that a person in that type of cocoon would grasp for when trying to think of how "those racist Republicans" sound. You know?

As far as Obama's "off the record" comment, I assume that's a plant too. It would in fact look silly for the president to come out and comment on such a meaningless issue, but this way he gets to do just that, and take a side that is overwhelmingly popular (probably to the tune of about 90 percent) AND side with a demographic he's less popular with. At least that's my guess on Taylor Swift fans. Others have pointed out that it's kind of a minor Sister Souljah moment. I don't believe for a second that it was an accidental leak.

Wow. I seem to have missed one whopper of a troll during my little break there, didn't I.

"AllenS said... I doubt that he/she (Metlife) is a new commenter. This type of commenter keeps returning, and returning, but with a different name."

Probably. While this isn't always the case, socks tend to comprise a large portion of the extreme "I'm here just to trash this blog/forum/whatever" crowd. They're the ones who've usually gotten banned or somehow think they've been treated unfairly, and their continuing purpose is nothing more than to bring a given forum down.

"Fred4Pres said... There are a lot of lefty trolls trying to peddle the BS that all the opposition about Obama is racially based. It is not."

Amen. And I'm sick of that myself. It's a distraction from and an obscuring of the legitimate criticisms that have been put out there.

"Quasimodo said... It is usually easy to pick out a Moby commenter. They have built straw men in their minds about who and what conservatives are."

True. They tend to post rather obvious, over the top stereotyped commentary of the groups/topics/subjects they hate, rather than be merely obnoxious.

I’m very cognizant of the fact that a lot of what is being pointed to as “racism” in the culture right now is simply provocation on the part of people who are tired of being accused of racism.

What I can’t accept is a worldview that denies our history. That shrugs off the hard work and thought of dealing with the issue of race in America with a “I see no color; every man is only the sum of his actions in my eyes.” In my experience the people who say that are simply ignoring a lot of problems and issues.

First, I question why people (ok, it’s mostly older white people) are so tired of talking about race. Maybe it’s because the civil rights struggle pretty much defined their entire lives and they got sick of it, sick of the rhetoric, hectoring, loudmouths, profiteers and most of all, sick of the guilt. But to me, there is really no topic more fascinating! The issue of identity formation is at the heart of all political conflicts in the world. From the greek city states to the smelting cauldron of miscegenation in the new world, it’s the whole history of humanity…

Today we are in a fascinating spot in American history in particular. But I would say the struggle today is tribal, rather than racial in the South African apartheid sense. The race supremacists barely exist on the black side anymore— the triumph of the black bourgeoisie epitomized in Obama has actually reinforced the notion that the way ahead if you are considered “black” in America is now to achieve firmly within the lines of mainstream society.

White supremacy, however, is going to be an issue. At the tea party marches I see a distinct push back from a tribe that considers itself out of power with Obama as president. And it’s not because he’s black, exactly, but that most definitely plays a big part. Come on. That is so obvious— Bill Clinton could pierce the code and “pass” in that tribe for a lot of people, though in policy he and Obama are both mainstream democrats.

Meanwhile a lot of people feel that they belong to the same tribe as Obama, regardless of skin color.

Can the Obama haters acknowledge that race is an issue? That notions of race in the south affect how white people there see Obama? I say this not to add to a chorus that wants to turn every white southerner that opposes Obama into Bull Connor. But from personal experience, especially with Hillary supporters, older white women like my mother, and south carolinians from my hometown. “He just doesn’t look like a president should,” is what it boils down to.

Two reasons people are "tired of talking about race" are that 1) to at least a large part of one side, talking about it means talking down to the people you're talking to, and 2) so much of the conversation is just stupid. This becomes a little bit extra-crystal-clear if you're neither black nor white, believe me.

I loved listening to Glenn Loury and John McWhorter talk about race on bloggingheads. If I had to listen to Glenn Beck, Jesse Jackson, Rachel Maddow or Michael Steele on race, I'd wish I were deaf.

Racism is real. I understand the need to push back against ideological opponents who use it as a weapon. But if you put all that aside for a minute, you would be hard pressed to deny that it's a factor...

First, Ann Althouse SHOULD contact the Secret Service about that threatening post. As far as I am concern she has a legal and moral obligation to do so.

Who ever wrote that post is vile and is so far outside of the American political mainstream as to have no connection to either the political left or the political right.

It is telling that Ann took that post as a cheap opportunity to smear liberal commenters to her blog when she could have as easily (and incorrectly) smeared the right. Ann clearly is happy to have conservatives fawning over her even if that requires making her blog a right wing joke.

...Racism is real. I understand the need to push back against ideological opponents who use it as a weapon. But if you put all that aside for a minute, you would be hard pressed to deny that it's a factor...

Who's denying that racism's real or a factor? Of course it is.

Speaking ONLY for myself, I'm tired of being held accountable for things that took place before I was born and that were done by people I'm not descended from who held ideas I've always rejected. Yet, too many (you?) seem more than willing to assume that, because of the color of my skin (and my gender) I've got to excise my inner racist before we can move forward on the issue of race. I find that assumption racist and I'm offended by it.

George: Yeah, the neck hole thing, and I would appreciate it if you would say you're sorry.

Hanke: No way, you would've completely stretched it out.

George: You're an alcoholic! You have to apologize. Step Nine! Step Nine.

Hanke: All right, George, all right. I'm sorry. I'm very, very sorry. I'm so sorry that I didn't want your rather bulbous head struggling to find its way through the normal-size neck hole of my finely knit sweater.

To be intellectually as accurate as possible, let’s assume that for all of those that would honestly describe themselves as “haters”, race is THE issue. I’d buy that, but then again, I don’t hate the man. I just really, really, really, really, really dislike his policy directions and a good deal of the actions he’s taken thus far.

And, again, to be as accurate as possible and before I’ll continue a back and forth with you, please admit that to many Obama “lovers” race is THE issue. I have talked to scores of black co-workers, friends, friends of friends, etc, etc, who basically don’t know anything about the man (or his policies) other than he’s black and he’s president. Granted, there are just as many ignorant polity on both sides, but before you go lambasting conservatives on the issue of race, admit that skin bigotry doesn’t have a “home” with any one group of people.

By the way, I was with you on your original post (sans the guilt because I have none regarding race; not of any kind) until you got to this point…

The race supremacists barely exist on the black side anymore— the triumph of the black bourgeoisie epitomized in Obama has actually reinforced the notion that the way ahead if you are considered “black” in America is now to achieve firmly within the lines of mainstream society.

Assuming your statement is true, I would suggest that the race supremacists on the white side barely exist anymore. They have been marginalized and exist only in the far fringes. This is a success of both the civil rights movement, but also one of pure common sense…something the squeaky wheels on both sides rarely account to the Joes and Janes of America. On the other hand, I know for a fact that the charge of being too “white” is still rampant in the black community here in St Louis. It infects every level of life, from school-aged kids up through 20’s and 30’s. Honestly, you don’t see that sort of nonsense in people that are 40 or over, but I think that’s true of a great deal of nonsense, cutting across all issues.

While you’re trying to make a decent point, your tone seems to get bogged down in the “its all your fault, conservatives” mantra, forgetting that race is not merely a two-way street, but a multilane freeway with as many off-ramps and cloverleafs as there are horrible, mangled, bloody car wrecks that cause gapers delays every time we turn on the damned news.

I think that the most startlingly racist thing I've seen lately was a defense of ACORN that relied on a claim that 1) the black ladies working at ACORN were obviously stupid people made to look even stupider, and 2) that these stupid black women were helpless to comply with obviously foolish and very young white people.

Considering that *lately* I also saw a "Obama the Barbarian" comic book with Obama dressed up like an African chieftain with a leopard loin cloth and tooth necklace ("Red Sarah" was on the cover and both she and Hillary appeared in chain mail bikinis in the comic) this might be saying something... or not... because I don't think that was racist (even if it might be the source of the "Obama witchdoctor" picture someone had at a health care rally.)

Because you know what? We really ARE past the idea that black people are savages and Obama in a Conan the Barbarian spoof is really funny. (And very PRO Obama.)

Or at least most of us are past that. Some of us obviously *believe* that the ACORN videos showed women too stupid to know better and too intimidated by color to stand up to a couple of obviously ridiculous white kids.

The videos clearly showed women who were bright, energetic, hard working, and wanting to help...(which makes the whole thing pretty darn sad, actually.) How racist would a person have to be to automatically see in those videos stupid bumbling black idiots who are incapable of adult responsibility?

Montaigne, If people are tired of race, I don’t think it’s about wanting to forget history, it’s about being tired of being accused of being “a racist” with little or no provocation. It is like we are all have blood guilt or something. I mentioned on another thread the reaction of many young north east coast types to simply finding out that you are southern...it’s an automatic trip down the “we won the civil war” memory lane (followed by “southerners are inbred and don’t wear shoes”) when all you want is to get a freaking beer. THAT is what is so tiresome.

I think they are perfectly capable of determining what is or isn't a waste of their time. Simply contacting them is not, though. I'd dearly love to know who this idiot really is, if only because I am genuinely curious as to the intentions of the idiot.

The Racist smear campaign of any and all Obama critics is hitting "critical" mass everywhere at once. Who knew that we could all be so easily targeted for smearing here at Althouse, by the use of only a few plants in the comments and their "outraged" accomplices pointing them out. It's High Noon and the train from DailyKos has rolled into town. All Gary Coopers sheriff types please take your places.

This is not a conversation! You're making claims about things you can't possibly know. The condescension of claiming to know what's inside someone else's mind is sabotaging the very conversation you say you want to have. For what it's worth.

Shanna, you've referenced your Mass. experience several times now on threads talking about Southerness. It must have been quite traumatic for you. I can assure you, though, that many of us Southerners, while having similar experiences with Northerners here and there, have also had completely benign visits up North as well. You might want to let that one go and look to the future.

Metlife is certainly a lefty troll. No one who actually had a mind like that would hang out at Althouse for a nanosecond.

But the fact that a lefty troll would would put such a vile and ugly thought into the public domain as a way of making a politcal point speaks volumes about the incredible and incredibly blind moral arrogance of so many on the left. It is what inspires their denial of service attacks on Joe Wilson's site. It is also a good example of the moral sadism of many leftists, i.e., pleasure in using moral judgments as a way of harming another person--see especially Maureen Dowd.

Of course it's true for some where "some" > 0. I'd even be willing to grant "possible" for "many." But you are claiming certain knowledge, which is not just improbable in my experience but also impossible for you to actually have.

Shanna, you've referenced your Mass. experience several times now on threads talking about Southerness. It must have been quite traumatic for you.

Beth - Heh. Perhaps I'm guilty of repeating myself, as you've pointed out, and I'll drop it (although it's not a Mass experience-the idiot who was wearing the conf flag is from Massachusettes-most of these people were from new york).

I will assure you, though, that it was not a traumatic experience, I just thought it was annoying and crazy. Maybe it stuck in my head because it was so bizarre. I think it's more an ignorance thing (and maybe a manners thing).

I love the east coast, truly. Most of my best friends in school and after were from NY/Michigan/Massachusettes/Pennsylvania. They are lovely people. I really do love New York and DC.

Can the Obama haters acknowledge that race is an issue? That notions of race in the south affect how white people there see Obama? I say this not to add to a chorus that wants to turn every white southerner that opposes Obama into Bull Connor.

Can Obama worshippers admit that race in a minor issue?

Can stupid Yankees learn to capitalize the "S" in "South" and "Southerners?"

Can MM look up where the huge majority of race riots, and racil unrest has been in the past 30 years? Hint: It's not the South.

BHO (the magic negro, halfrican, who hates America, and is hiding the truth of his birth)is the real racist, so says Rush and much of the professional conservative industrial complex (and, at least in some part, many of the right wing Althouse readers/commenters/blatherers). Rush et. al. are standing guard and non-stop alerting us to the dark days of reverse racism that have been ushered in by the rearing head of BHO (the magic negro, halfrican, who hates America, and is hiding the truth of his birth). You betcha, REAL Americans.

Rush Limbaugh, Ann's hero of immoderate speech, says on his program every hour of every day that "Obama hates American" and that Obama is "out to destroy America." Is Rush Limbaugh advocating the assassination of the president? No, of course not. Does he know that there are people out there that think of themselves as "defenders of America" who might consider his over the top ("immoderate") rhetoric as a justification/invitation? You betcha. Ann knows that too.

BTW, I thought the same about nutty leftist who said that President Bush was a "war criminal." I said so when he was still in office. The difference is that mainstream liberals did not say such things, unlike what we are now seeing with Limbaugh and other mainstream conservatives.

"Metlife is certainly a lefty troll. No one who actually had a mind like that would hang out at Althouse for a nanosecond.

But the fact that a lefty troll would would put such a vile and ugly thought into the public domain as a way of making a politcal point speaks volumes about the incredible and incredibly blind moral arrogance of so many on the left."

"Metlife" must be a lefty! Why? Because the Althouse crew is above that.

And then this "fact" speaks volumes about "so many" lefties.

So you know the identity and the motivations of this poster, because of course, NO CONSERVATIVE would ever say such a thing.

Rush Limbaugh during every hour of every day of his program is saying that Obama "hates America" and that Obama is "out to destroy America."

Please provide the liberal equivalent. Heck, please provide the liberal half equivalent. I am sure that there are some less prominent liberals who occasionally engaged in such things. But Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck have been systematic.

Also, whatever awful things some less prominent liberal voices said about President Bush, it is a whole different ball game by saying that the president "hates" and "wants to destroy" America. You know it and I know it.

Mike Malloy and Rachel Maddow (when she was on radio...I don't watch her tv show) where amp'd up just as high on the liberal side and crap they said was just as inflammatory and disrespectful. Since I've blessedly received the glory that is satellite radio, I've noticed Mark Thompson, while softer spoken, is just as bad.

To say there aren't equivalents on the liberal side of the spectrum is either disingenuous at best or a glaring example of fundamental attribution error at worst.

What's most amusing about this thread is the silly attempt to bash Althouse for assuming this is a moby. it's not like she said she knew it for a fact beyond a reasonable doubt... she simply made clear that this is the obvious likelihood.

Which it is, of course. All the left wingers in this thread realize it. Pretending there's a real question about it, and not just some narrow shred of possibility, is akin to questioning Obama's citizenship.

But whatever. We'll be seeing much, much more of this. Obama wants his thugs to 'get in their faces' and 'punch back twice as hard'. He's a fascist, unlike W or Bill Clinton, who simply were presidential leaders. I hope the Secret Service does ID this moby and that he's prosecuted. This is not free speech... it's a threat against our elected jackass president, and it is not OK.

" Montagne Montaigne said... Can the Obama haters acknowledge that race is an issue?"

Can Montagne Montaigne acknowledge that race tends to be brought up more by those wanting to don the mantle of the aggrieved - who, BTW, are not necessarily minorities who've truly experienced racism on a personal level but rather in discourse tend to be white liberals seeking to speak on the behalf of the downtrodden - than the supposed racists themselves? And can he further acknowledge that too often race is used as an excuse to deflect criticisms away from "Obama's policies are bad because of "X", "Y", and "Z"", and towards the strawman dummy saying "Obama's bad because he's not white"? Because all too often it seems to be brought up as supposedly being germane to a given issue, yet ends up functioning as a derail to the conversation covering that issue.

Yes, I can easily acknowldge that race is an issue with Obama (BTW, I'm no "hater" of him. I disagree with his policies, but I don't call the man evil or wish him dead, like too many Kos kids and other idiots did with Bush. Those are haters). But there's a difference between pointing out the obvious fact that race will be an issue that can come up when discussing Obama and dredging up race as an issue when discussing, say, healthcare or national defense. I admit that race will be a relevant detail when talking about a black president, but it's tiresome to see it brought up in the middle of a conversation about something else entirely.

Also, whatever awful things some less prominent liberal voices said about President Bush, it is a whole different ball game by saying that the president "hates" and "wants to destroy" America. You know it and I know it.

Cmon, the left accused Bush of being personally involved in 9/11 and attacks on the WTC (remember fire doesn't melt steel) and the Pentagon, solely because of some desire to wage war to enrich his Haliburton buddies. They then went on to describe him as practically implementing a police state akin to Nazi Germany. Then, they went on to describe how he hates black people and deliberately went slow in his response to Katrina because of racial animus. Were you not here for the past 8 years?

I guess there's two things to disentangle -- there's Black race supremacists, on the one hand, and there's plain Black racists on the other.

I mean, Black supremacists were always kind of pathetic, since Blacks have generally been at the bottom of the social and political hierarchy. It's not like a century ago when a White man, who got to lord it over everyone else, then added insult to injury by explaining it was God's will that he rule over the other races, on account of his innate genetic and cultural superiority. Even in modern times, I don't think there are a lot of Blacks who actually think Black is superior, in the same way.

But on the other hand, I think Black racism is still a pretty major phenomenon, and matters a lot more than it did forty or fifty years ago, simply because Blacks are a major -- if not dominant -- demographic and political force in many urban settings. And that changes the power relationship, such that Black racism does matter. A lot.

Back in 2004, we had Ray Nagin, then-mayor of New Orleans, boasting of how New Orleans was and must remain a "chocolate city." Recently, Black racism has flared up in connection with the Atlanta mayoral race. And of course, for myself, the LA riots -- when mostly-Black rioters in LA went after Koreans and Korean shops in an orgy of racial hatred and violence the likes of which Koreans had never before experienced in the US -- loom pretty large in my imagination, even though they're approaching twenty years ago now. And to be fair, I don't think African-American rappers today are going around threatening Koreans with "pay respect to the black fist, or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp," so I'm sure there has been some improvement in Black racial attitudes. But it's not like the problem has gone away.

This is, mind, a problem principally for non-Black minorities (Hispanics and Asians) rather than Whites. After all, Black political and demographic power is concentrated in urban areas, which Whites abandoned generations ago. But it's still worth discussing. But, it is generally not part of the discussion of race that happens whenever some sanctimonious type says he wants a conversation on race. Instead, you get people mouthing utter rubbish like "minorities cannot be racist." To his credit, Obama has actually mentioned and spoken out against Black racism a little -- in connection with Black animosity towards Jews (if I recall correctly; cannot find the speech now). But generally speaking, public figures have not been at all frank about the problem of minority attitudes (and it's not just Black attitudes, to be fair).

The reason it's a definite moby is that nothing in Althouse would be interesting to such a real person.

Look at all the crap, from his point of view, he'd have to plough through. He'd be on some other blog.

Our real native lefties are here to detach the odd mot juste from its object.

Normal poetic forces win against them in their case, making it more or less obvious what they're up to. They'd have to be much better writers than they are to get anywhere. The best the can get is a thread hijack from tone deaf responders.

Also, whatever awful things some less prominent liberal voices said about President Bush, it is a whole different ball game by saying that the president "hates" and "wants to destroy" America.

Saying that Bush was going to cause mushroom clouds to spread over the country is tantamount to the same thing, is it not? Saying that Bush hates/doesn't care about blacks is along the same lines, isn't it?

As far as Obama is concerned, well, if you take a gold ring and melt it down to make bullion, it's still the same gold, but you've destroyed the ring, have you not? You've changed it, reforged it, but have you not destroyed the ring?

President Obama's speeches are rife with the reforging/reshaping mantra.

Rush Limbaugh during every hour of every day of his program is saying that Obama "hates America" and that Obama is "out to destroy America."

Not exactly. What Rush asserts is that Obama is out to destroy America as we know it, and change it from a capitalist country to an essentially socialist one. The President has a different view of what makes this country great and where it should be going than does Rush. No surpise.

I am confused. I don't understand why Metlife was banned? Of course, I also supported Althouse's previous position on trolls...IGNORE and move on. Frankly that isn't a bad guideline for how to deal with someone who is so far right or left they are falling off the edge of the continuum either.

Having a post to highlight this turkey is mind boggling, unless of course, Althouse has had a change of heart on her earlier guideline?

It could be fun though to work through exactly what "VILE" means, plus to ponder if "troll vile" is better or worse than "falling-off-the-edge vile", not to mention the "vile to who" question, and how that too may make a difference.

jr565 wrote"Cmon, the left accused Bush of being personally involved in 9/11 and attacks on the WTC"

The left did no such thing. "Truthers" were treated by not only the mainstream left but also the far left as being the kooks they are. I listen to many left wing radio program were once it was clear that the caller was a "Truther" they were quickly cut off. Here in Madison, WI Kevin Barrett was given no forum by the left. He was completely frozen out as being a kook. Ann Althouse knows that.

If Rush Limbaugh didn't say "Obama is trying to destroy this country" he'd not be doing his job. If I were his boss and he was NOT saying that, I'd fire him. Rush is doing what we pay him to do - a modern Paul Revre.

I am pointing out that the Hitler pictures which I have seen featured in the internet coverage of Tea Parties and other legislative protests are most likely to be held by Lyndon LaRouche's supporters -- who do not typiclly represent the conservative political world view.

Smearing conservatives with the Hitler poster as if that is the norm is indicative of an ill informed person.

LE Lee - I'm glad I've got powerful Rush Limbaugh on my side rather then obscure Daily Kos diarists. Power is a good thang, that's what me an my hillbilly buddies tell each other while chewing tabacky.

The left did no such thing. "Truthers" were treated by not only the mainstream left but also the far left as being the kooks they are....

Really?! I could have sworn I saw Michael Moore sitting in the Presidential box at the 2004 Democrat National Convention. Didn't a bunch of national Democrats attend the opening of his movie that suggested Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks and that Bush helped the Saudis behind the plot to escape justice? And didn't those same Democrats laud Moore and his movie? Didn't Rep. Pete Starks (D-CA) say Bush sent our soldiers to war in Iraq and Afghanistan for the President's entertainment and that he lied to the American people and Congress just so he could maintain his blood sport? Didn't Starks say this as part of prepared remarks from the floor of the House?

I'm not suggesting Obama's supporters should like the disrespectful way he's addressed, nor would I think they'd approve of the scorn heaped on his policies and programs by those on the right; but don't come here pretending this marks some new low in civility. The elevator's got to go down several more floors before we even approach the depths of venom spat at Bush by his political opponents. (I know, the difference is that Bush deserved while Obama is above reproach. Give me, and the rest of us, a break!)

I’m retired from teaching now so I don’t have to parrot the official line anymore. Many black people are racists, and in my experience teach their children to be racists. If I had a class of 30 students, half of them black and half of them white, almost all of the blacks would routinely make anti-white statements and racist comments. One or two of the whites would do so. Check with any teacher who is honest and on the bleeding edge of social development.

Can the Obama haters acknowledge that race is an issue? That notions of race in the south affect how white people there see Obama? I say this not to add to a chorus that wants to turn every white southerner that opposes Obama into Bull Connor.

I think this post fairly representative of the leftist orthodoxy right now. The assumption that much of the opposition to President Obama, esp. in the South, is closet racism. As one poster pointed out, as voiced very recently by MoDo.

I do think that we may become a more racist society because the standard refrain when anyone criticizes President Obama, anyone in his Administration, or even Congress, is that they are racists, and you have to listen for the coded messages (that most of us don't hear - the liberals that hear such much have some sort of code book or something).

But what bothers me is the assumption by so many there that the opposition to the President, his Administration, etc. must be racist because so many Southerners have voiced contrary opinions is plain racism. The reality, I will strongly suggest, is that the opposition is primarily against the policies of President Obama and his attempt to move the country from being primarily capitalist to primarily government controlled and socialistic.

And, yes, this sort of view is more prevalent in the South. Not because it is racist, but because it is much more conservative than the NE and CA. But you see the same views throughout much of fly-over country and the states that voted for Bush in 2004, in probably similar percentages.

And, yes, this sort of view is more prevalent in the South. Not because it is racist, but because it is much more conservative than the NE and CA. But you see the same views throughout much of fly-over country and the states that voted for Bush in 2004, in probably similar percentages.

Bruce with all due respect you're in Colorado, I'm in Georgia and just one generation removed from dirt farmers. Sadly his race is an issue to a sizable minority of the population down here. Including some self-described conservative democrats. Sad but true.

I accidentally read an LE Lee comment (my bad for reading the site from the bottom). Is he really claiming Michael Moore isn't a truther? While telling us to 'stick to the truth'? Does L E Lee EVER come to this site to discuss anything other than how much he hates everybody here?

What a freaking psycho.

The democrat party is over 30% truther psycho, so no surprise there's another truther apologist here. Another day, another drop in the polls for Obama and his admin of truthers, and another truther pretending to be a republican. I would bet a significant sum that L E Lee is a moby sometimes. Not necessarily Metlife (too common a problem to have any clue about that), but with that much hatred, and no arguments to back it up, why not?

Ah, so the 9/11 Commission, who looked into the events of 9/11 are all Truthers now too, eh? You got nothin, as usual. If you thought there were some weird people/signs at the big DC tea party, just imagine if a 9/11 happens under Obama, instead of Bush.

Aside from the far Lefties, one can't forget that there is always the very real possibility of a Hal Turner (formerly courtesy the FBI) or Richard Warman (formerly courtesy the Canadian Human Rights Coucil).

It's good to see posters landing very hard on such (whoever the are), and when there's threats involved, passing on the info to the appropriate authorities.

MOORE: Well, I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years, and since Fahrenheit 9/11, that they heard these explosions, that they believe there is much more to the story then we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth. They haven't even told us half the truth. And so I support, and I hope, you know, if there's a new administration or somebody could open up a new investigation of this before we get too far away from it, to find out the whole truth. Let me just give you one thing that has—I've asked for for a long time. I've filmed before, down at the Pentagon, before 9/11. There's got to be at least 100 video cameras ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come we haven't seen the straight—I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video, I want to see 100 videos that exist of this. Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.

So, help me out, because I admit I'm not the sharpest nail in the box. You were trying to say that Moore wasn't a truther, right? Was that to back up your previous statement that mainstream liberals weren't the kooks in the truther movement?

So, help me out, because I admit I'm not the sharpest nail in the box. You were trying to say that Moore wasn't a truther, right? Was that to back up your previous statement that mainstream liberals weren't the kooks in the truther movement?

No, what I said was a post titled "Michael Moore Calls For New 9/11 Investigation" as evidence that "For 8 years the Truthers have gotten plenty of Daily Kos diaries without deletions" was wildly mis characterized. There was a bipartisan 9/11 Commission, was there not? Are they all Truthers?

Sock puppetry on the Left has been around a long time. Even before Glen Greenwald. It has also reared up in certain blacks and activist Jewish progressives using a purportedly real-life criminal "attacker" to elicit sympathy.

The sock puppet is used to both elicit sympathy for the likes of Greenwald or Lyndon Larouche by a terrible obscene diatribe on their site that "shows how bad the opposition is" when it is obviously written by a rather stupid supporter giving themselves away with stock phrasiology and word patterns by the 2nd or 3rd post.......Or used to plant malicious comments in some political opponents or ideological foes site - which amazingly, is somehow instantly found in minutes by a Greenwald or such's supporter - and reposted on their site to show just how despicable the opposition "truly is".

You see this fakery a lot on some news sites and other open forum places. And on top of the Left, you have your fake war vet heroes, and some rightwingers posting stuff like "I work in an abortion clinic and I love killing black babies. The less of them the better.." Or, "I think all the American torturers, troops and Bush-Hitlers, should be given to Al Qaeda for a legitimate Sharia trial".

I think at Althouse, your average discerning commentor of some common sense can spot a sock puppet a mile off - Metlife was clearly one.

During the Duke false rape accusation case, several hard Left individuals regularly went into blogs that were set up to cover the case - then grabbed their own generated trash and reposted it on Leftist sites as "proof" the Lacrosse teams advocates were vile racists. It was routine. Some were so sloppy about it they left a trial as wide as a 6-lane highway right back to their own websites or the "handles" of frequent posters at Lefty sites with their personal bios attached..(grad student at U of Atlanta, 9/11 Truther, adjunct lecturer in journalism at Columbia U in NYC)

And on talk radio, the "Plants" happen a lot - but the person broadcasting or the staff also has pretty good "spotting instincts" to detect insincere sophists.

Though some of it's practitioners, like Bill O'Reilly, are among the worst at plucking a deranged comment off a place like The Daily Kos and tarring the site as typical of the comment.

It is more serious when it goes into real life and the faker is some black student or professor claiming some vile Racist-Who-Must be stopped by the law. (And the exciting Marches and Rallies against Racism and the mandatory diversity teaching all whites must attend) she/he proposes. Routinely after the "Victim" notes somebody hung a noose on their doorknob and scrawled "Die Ni**er!" graffitti everywhere on campus....And 9 times out of ten investigation concludes or points to the black activist making up the stuff themselves.As with the case of the radical left Jewish activist teacher, who admitted she drew the swastikas and anti-Jewish smears and threats on her own car...given police investigation noting her...OOOOOPS!...distinctive way of hand-writing certain words, was mirrored on the car.

Don't be surprised if you look around and find someone at moveon.org or Greenwald's site who made an amazing, disgusting find last night of a "typical Althouse" poster named "Metlife".

********I find it especially repugnant because it's historical roots lie in despot regimes and amoral movements that concoct things others purportedly said, in order to destroy them. Discover an individual or group that is a threat...then target them by planting an agent-provacateur or getting an insider who can be turned or bribed to say things that effectively denounce them as heretics, traitors, counter-revolutionaries. To give the excuse to destroy them. A tactic at least as old as Jesus and the Jewish Sanhedrin.Used by the Inquisition, the Jacobites, the Bolsheviks...******

I want to see the video, I want to see 100 videos that exist of this. Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building?

It takes a lot of suspicion to believe what hundreds/thousands of people saw with their own eyes is not the truth. Millions saw on television the NY planes. People called from the planes! The delusion here is unbelievable.

I'm not sure I'm with you there. How is "just show me the long form birth cert" any more substantial than "just release the black boxes and video".

Maybe we should have a natural born citizenship commission to finally resolve the "birther" claims.

One reason that the claims are different is that the Truther claims are infeasible, both from a political/government and a physics point of view, while the Birther claims are feasible, if somewhat far fetched.

To make the Truther claims plausible, you would have to answer not only how the physics would work (which I submit you cannot) and overcome a lot of evidence to the contrary, but also how such a large conspiracy could be implemented so early on in the Bush Administration.

In the case of the Birther claims, all that would be necessary either way would be an original birth certificate. On the other hand, there are plausible reasons why President Obama could possibly have a birth recorded here, while having been born overseas. Not probable or likely, but possible - a lot more possible than the very early Bush Administration bringing down the twin towers, etc. without anyone in such a massive conspiracy admitting their part in the operation.

How many major leftist columnists have explained that being a truther is no big deal?

And didn't Obama hire a bunch of truthers?

Not that I care. Obama loves Rev Wright... thinks it's the best place to take his little daughters on a Sunday morning. These people are crazy. The Apollo org writing all these huge bills for Obama and Pelosi is run by the Weather Underground members. I can't say these folks are extremely abnormal anymore... too mainstream on the left to want to hurt this country, to believe insane things about it, etc.

But yeah, being a truther is not a big problem for about a third of the democrat party

If Barack Obama was a conservative Republican, 95-99% of the conservatives who oppose - hate if you insist - him would be wanting to have his image carved into Mount Rushmore. Limbaugh would be leading the movement.

And 95-99% of liberals who support - worship if you insist - him would be marching in vehement opposition to him. Olbermann would be leading that parade.

To be sure, the intensity of hatred on either side in either scenario, real or imagined, is a bit higher because of the race factor. Can't ignore that; it's real. That 3-4% can cause problems.

But the crossroads of American politics and race really can't be distinguished anymore. Although it makes a good column or talkshow to think otherwise.

Metlife the company should sue him for defamation and slander and libel or whatever you legal types call it. Using their company name to post racist and terrorist comments, to besmirch their image. Sue him and take his penthouse and Prius.

I've had a moby radar for a long time, I just didn't know what to call it. Actually my BS detector is finely tuned.

Yet there wasn't any pushback from anti-Obama commenters when Conservative4Palin commenter "Cardboard FLOTUS" said this in response to Althouse's post asking how can we help Obama: "Encourage Bill Ayers to blow up the White House."

BTW, this week Charles Johnson of Little Green Footbals has removed all links to Pajamas Media (a web site he helped create) because he's so disgusted by Pajamas Media running articles by white supremacists.

JAL - I can see what you mean; my comment was a bit snippy because I misinterpreted you to be continuing what had been said in some recent threads here, that Larouche is a liberal. No, he's not.

I have no way of knowing, though, and I doubt that you do either, that the people waving Nazi Obama signs and such are all Larouche supporters. In any case, that's where the Larouche supporters feel welcome, so now you know that when people gather, there'll be crazies in the mix. There were plenty of people out there who probably have never heard of Larouche and yet were declaring Obama to be a marxist Muslim from Indonesia. It's impossible to put a fine point on the identities of a bunch of folks marching for a bunch of reasons.

That's a pretty tough analogy to swallow unless you were to also spell out his policies. It wouldn't have mattered if Bush were black conservative Republican candidate. Once he took office and ran things as Bush did, a whole range of actual conservatives had a whole range of ire with his policies.

I left the Republican party because of Bush. It would have mattered not a whit what his pigmentation level was. I had enough with both his policies and the lack of conservative push-back from the incumbent Republicans.

On the other hand, if Obama were a conservative black president and governed with the Constitution and personal liberty as his guiding principles...and actually got things accomplished along those lines, you can damned well bet I would be clamoring for his inclusion on Rushmore.

Beth -- I have no problem with Charles Johnson. The issue is that this guy keeps bringing up Charles Johnson as some kind of exemplar. It would be annoying under any circumstance. Given the fact that Obama is obviously flailing, it's downright weird.

What's the point?

Next time there's a thread here about Charles Johnson, let's talk about him. Otherwise, he's not pertinent.

Beth: I'd ask to take your defense of Charles to LGF, but we all know that people are banned there instantly for asking what the hell Charles's sudden change to constant and consistent Obama defense came from.

Charles isn't just boring, he's a heavy handed coward who bans dissent. That's sufficient to prove to anyone that he has no character. Why is it that no one can condemn LGF without you stepping in to make some dumb defense (such as 'why aren't you bashing instapundit... which is pretty dumb, ya know)?

Re mainstream liberals being truthers, even maintream liberals admit as much. Of course people like Ed Asner are mainstream, but maybe they are simply regarded as kooky actors so we'll discount them.But when Van Jones was "thrown under the bus" for being a truther and communist various mainstream liberals came out and demanded that Obama defend Jones.People like Jame Hamsher wrote he was "thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007".That's one 3rd of democrats. That's not mainstream?

in the Nation John Nichols wrote:that Jones merely “wanted a more serious inquiry, as did many mainstream Democrats.”

Even Newsweek got involved and had their say:"cited a questionable petition he signed in 2004 alleging that the 9/11 terrorist attacks may have been the work of the government. There’s no doubt that he could have chosen better words when referring to Republicans as “a--holes” last year, or been more prudent in his associations with antigovernment groups. It's worth noting that the "truther" movement accusing the Bush administration of a hand in 9/11 has evolved significantly since 2004. Back then, it was a sizable group of skeptical citizens asking unanswered questions. Only since then has the association turned fringe and angry."

Ah, so the truthers alleging that Bush used demolitions to bring down 6 WTC only turned fringe and angry later on. Gotcha.

And of course, Chris Matthews chimed in with his statement that 61% of democrats believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 attacks

To be sure, the intensity of hatred on either side in either scenario, real or imagined, is a bit higher because of the race factor. Can't ignore that; it's real. That 3-4% can cause problems.

I don't know that it only points one way. For my part, honestly, I do feel that it would be best if Obama's presidency turns out to be a success. It would be unhelpful if the "First Black President" ends up in the history books as a monumental failure. So all things being equal, I would prefer he be a success. I just don't feel that way strongly enough that I'm willing to support the mishmash of somewhat boneheaded policies he's been pushed out to sell to the public.

I think many conservatives and libertarians would be a lot more vehement at this point if Obama were White, and have held back in ways they would not have done if he were White. Are there more on the Right who have held back on their criticism because he is Black -- and not just because they don't want to have to go through the bother of getting slimed as racists -- than have been super-energised because he is Black? I don't know. I tend to suspect there has been quite a lot of forebearance, which is only now seeping away.

If Barack Obama was a conservative Republican, 95-99% of the conservatives who oppose - hate if you insist - him would be wanting to have his image carved into Mount Rushmore. Limbaugh would be leading the movement."

You are really only saying something about yourself to project this blind allegience to Rush and the right. We just had W for years, and the right constantly bashed Bush for spending too much money, prescription benefits, compassionate conservatism, and a score of other things.

It's perfectly obvious that what you're saying isn't true. A lot of republicans voted for Obama, after all. He won several 'red' states by promising tax cuts and deficit reductions to the gullible.

No, you're just like Maureen Dowd. You're the kind of libearl who would have venerated Bush as a democrat (which is about 100000 times more believable than Obama the Republican). You project. The Left Projects a lot.

If this were your blog, you could do that. It's not, so what's your point?

It's amusing how a mere reference to LGF, among references to any number of other blogs, news sites, commenters and writers, sets off a few of the people here. Slow Joe finds it so boring, he writes copious paragraphs about it, repeating "boring" over and over just in case anyone might think he's not really bored, but perhaps a little obsessed.

Thanks for the laugh, and forgive me in advance, because when I need a chuckle, I know where to go and what to do.

Slow Joe-- That is a joke. "the right constantly bashed Bush for spending too much money, prescription benefits, compassionate conservatism, and a score of other things." ???? For real? You have got to Fucking Be Kidding Me. What a bunch of BS.

Also, I'd really like to see Althouse and Instapundit offer up some kind of proof that Metlife was a "lefty troll". Any proof to back up these insinuations and self-insulating lies?

In Beth's defense, she is defending the guy who keeps bringing up Charles Johnson.

The subtext of Loaf's argument is that this guy who used to be a leftist and then moved to the right has now, reportedly (I don't know), moved to the left again. So, because he has moved left, you should, too.

But Charles Johnson is obscure. He's not molding the national conversation. He's an irrelevant sideshow.

It would be unhelpful if the "First Black President" ends up in the history books as a monumental failure.

This.

The night he was elected, I thought to myself, over and over, that the very first thing I wanted him to do was to make it loud and clear that disagreement with him does not equal racism. He had ample opportunity to do this and did not.

The best possible scenario from a conservatives point of view is that Obama's presidency ends up as a less damaging Carter. That way, he's not a failure enough to warrant the left blaming right-wing racists for every misstep and not successful enough (with his agenda) to really screw things up for the rest of us.

Do you have proof that the post was created by someone on the right, dude?

What's that? You don't? Then what's your point.

Also, few people on the right were happy with Bush's domestic policy. You wouldn't know this, naturally, because you don't bother to try to understand the nuances among conservatives. You see a big blob, that you don't like, and you that causes you to create angry prose.

Loafing Oaf wrote:BTW, this week Charles Johnson of Little Green Footbals has removed all links to Pajamas Media (a web site he helped create) because he's so disgusted by Pajamas Media running articles by white supremacists.

No, as usuual you're wrong. He's removed all links to Pajamas Media because they removed links to him, because he in the past year or so has gone completely off the rails. And he's now passing off that stacy Mccain is a right wing supremacist meme because people have been criticizing him and taking his name off of their blogrolls. that's what he does in response. that's how he rolls.

For example, here's the Ace of Spades blog which has a nice long list of blogs. When it comes to LGF he removed the link and instead wrote: "Lotta Good Fine Blogs Out There; Why Not Try a New One Instead of Old Ones That Have Gone Off Their Trolley?"

"the right constantly bashed Bush for spending too much money, prescription benefits, compassionate conservatism, and a score of other things." ???? For real? You have got to Fucking Be Kidding Me. What a bunch of BS.

I know quite a few people that left the party over the Bush administration. Do we not count? Or are you only referring to the elites trying desperately to hold on to their jobs. I wonder how many of them, on either side, are going to be left after the next couple of cycles.

I beg to differ. Charles Johnson is running center in the same way that Obama did after the primary. No one would care if he hadn't been the torch holder of right wing internet lunacy during the election period.

I don't know. Has he offered some segue for his change in direction? If not, perhaps it's time that he did.

A sideshow is great and welcome. It's better in a language that isn't English, though. You don't have to get too close to it and you are prevented from fully understanding it. You can just sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

Beth--JAL is right re the Hitler signs and references (e.g., the woman Barney Frank insulted) coming from Larouchites. I'm sure you can also find some mainstream conservatives copying it, but that crazy cult is the source.

Joseph, if there were anywhere from 60,000 to a million people there, then I doubt you can actually vouch for who's carrying what sign. I understand why you'd want to, but it's not a reasonable assumption. It's comfortable to think the nastiest and least sensible rhetoric comes from a marginalized minority, and I hope that's true, but there's no basis for declaring that as a given truth.

It's comfortable to think the nastiest and least sensible rhetoric comes from a marginalized minority

I find this sudden fastidious concern with equating the President to Hitler to be .... peculiar. We watched the left make Hitler analogies a staple of their discourse for eight years. Now all of a sudden this is shocking?

It's perfectly obvious that what you're saying isn't true. A lot of republicans voted for Obama, after all. He won several 'red' states by promising tax cuts and deficit reductions to the gullible.

Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing. I'm not talking about the Republicans who voted for him. The issue is the current conservative hostility to his policies (and him) and its origins.

I'll repeat the scenario: if Obama, as a black Senator, embraced conservative policies, the conservatives (not Republicans) that dislike the current liberal Obama would be supporting him. Enthusiastically.

The opposition to Obama by the right today is almost entirely ideological and not racial (for the most part; there are, of course, exceptions).

if Obama were a conservative black president and governed with the Constitution and personal liberty as his guiding principles...and actually got things accomplished along those lines, you can damned well bet I would be clamoring for his inclusion on Rushmore.

Yes, that's my not very original point.

The source of the political right's opposition to Obama almost entirely lays in his policies and not his race.

Joseph, if there were anywhere from 60,000 to a million people there, then I doubt you can actually vouch for who's carrying what sign. I understand why you'd want to, but it's not a reasonable assumption. It's comfortable to think the nastiest and least sensible rhetoric comes from a marginalized minority, and I hope that's true, but there's no basis for declaring that as a given truth.

Are you truly as ignorant as you appear from this comment, or are you just trying to throw up some partisan chaff?

The Obama as Hitler signs have "LaRouche Political Action Committee www.larouchepac.com" clearly printed along the bottom.

So remember, kids, to shop at the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee -- the one that supports the guy who's run for the Democratic nomination for President seven times -- for all your Obama = Hitler signage needs.

Peter, yes, there were signs from Larouche. I didn't say there weren't. I said those weren't the only such signs - anyone claiming the Larouchies were the only crackpots and distractions out there is mistaken.

There are a lot of lefty trolls trying to peddle the BS that all the opposition about Obama is racially based.

You know what I don't get --- the same people who try to peddle this idiotic "all dissent against Obama is racism" nonsense also swear, up and down, that Obama being friendly with people of sketchy character is immaterial.

I mean, a guy with a single sign proves that all the critics are racists --- but Obama attending a church for decades doesn't really mean he agrees with that church.

Re: the "racist" tea party signs linked by Matt at 10:41, I'm about 75% sure that the first one is being carried by a medium-complexioned black guy. (It's a black-and-white picture, so it's hard to tell.)

The point of the sign seems to be aimed at suggesting to people (including the carrier's fellow African Americans) who hate slavery, ought to also despise Obama's statism, which the carrier is equating to slavery.

Yeah, and McCain going out of his way to kiss up to Hagee in no way meant that he agreed with Hagee.

Well no, it doesn't. Pandering by a politician doesn't imply agreement. Does anyone think Ted Kennedy's pandering to IRA supporters meant he agreed with the murder of innocent men, women and children?

If Obama had joined Wright's church as some sort of political stunt during the campaign, well, that would have been odious racial pandering but not necessarily evidence that Obama himself was racist. But joining an anti-white church as a private citizen, and sticking with it for decades? That's proof of racist sentiment if anything is.

Don't join the PC crowd, you guys, it doesn't become you - and it would be a lie anyway. You forget: I hang out here and, by now, know you too well. Sometimes the positions you take (and I'm including Ann in this statement) are more offensive to me than the word nigger - which I find impotent - but stating, clearly, you're defending wrong (as you are here) hasn't stopped you guys from continuing to do so, so, please, let's not bullshit each other about this: It may make you feel good, or superior, or *something* to act all offended by the "bad word' but you're doing no one any favors by trying to outlaw a fucking word. As a matter of fact, you're as silly as Al Sharpton was when he claimed to have held nigger's funeral.

I've said it once, here, and I'll say it again - and this time as a black man:

Grow the fuck up.

And by the way, if the word nigger is so offensive that it's worthy of banishment, then ban me now for repeatedly saying it here. You won't, because it would be wrong, and silly, and you'd be playing into the hands of the PC Left by doing so. You guys, taking words away from white people is a slippery slope to words being taken away from others. If you revere free speech, as Ann claims, then you don't do that.

Hypocrisy, wrapped in sanctimony, is a major problem these days - and it's results are much, much worse than certain words.

LOL, this crack emcee idiot thinks he can tell us what to think, and he condemns sanctimony.

You've got to be joking.

Of course it's OK to ban people for using racial slurs. They are stupid ways to communicate. At least you're not pimping your terrible blog anymore.

And your analysis of the threat is idiotic. He was threatening to kill a black man that he didn't name while talking about a black president. You seem to have a lot of insight into his mind... and are oddly sympathetic to someone who doesn't want a discussion... just wants to be ugly. Hopefully it's just because you can see yourself doing this, and not because you actually did.

I noticed a couple of people disagree that the right generally was uncritical of Bush.

That's preposterous, but I really can't find a way to convince you at this point. It's just such an obvious thing. Bush had approval ratings in the 30s, and won election with 51%. This isn't complicated.

Bear in mind the claim I was disputing, which is apparently what you're defending. Rush would not praise Obama if he were a republican. That level of blind allegiance simply doesn't exist, which is obvious when the GOP picked Mccain and the right groaned from shore to shore. You can switch from GOP to right to conservatives if you want to play that game, but what I say holds true for all three. The right, and I am sure much of the left, are not blind to policies. If Obama were to invade Iran, or support an anti gay marriage or pro choice amendment, all hell would break loose.

Isn't it possible that Johnson, who has been exposing Stacy McCain on his blog, was sincerely saddened to see Pajamas Media - a site he helped create - would be featuring him? Especially since one of the white supremacists Stacy McCain is associated with is someone who threatened Johnson and his family? But you claim to know the real reason!

You continue: And he's now passing off that stacy Mccain is a right wing supremacist meme because people have been criticizing him and taking his name off of their blogrolls.

He made a pretty solid case against Stacy McCain.

For example, here's the Ace of Spades....

Oh, you're one of those cultists. Is it beyond your abilities to notice that Charles Johnson is consistant in his principles when he goes after his targets on the left and the right? I wish I could say the same about hyper-partisan bloggers like Ace of Spades. What principles does Ace of Spades have, when he always sides on his "team" no matter what?

I can look at LGF's blogging over the years and see he sticks to his principles, and will do so even if it gets him purged by old allies. I can't say the same about most of the political bloggers, right and left. The political blogosphere, of course, is way over-hyped and is dominated by scummy liars. Props to Johnson for rising above 99% of the other prominent political bloggers. (In contrast, but only of late (so there's still hope for her to check herself), Althouse has been lowering herself into being just another blogosphere propagandist.)

But Metlife deserves deletion and, as Lucid said, investigation by the Secret Service. I like to think the Secret Service is good enough that they are already on it.

I like to think the Secret Service should not be wasting their time hunting down people on the Internet who have not made actual threats or said anything that is actually criminal. They probably already have their hands full with all the deranged right-wingers sporting guns at Obama speeches and other political events. But I'm glad the blog is not tolerant of this guy's disgusting comments and deleted him.

I have not bothered to look at his "case" against McCain. But I'm familar with Chuckies MO so let me guess. At some point McCain was in close proximity, or at least, in proximity, with somebody else deemed a "white supremacist" over at LGF. These days, that's the bulk of the conservative and libertarian movement. And McCain must have made some statements which, pried out of context, can by made to look damning. Or at least a little bad.